1. All votes must be in bold to be counted. You have three options: vote [name], unvote, or no lynch. Vote [name] is a vote to lynch said player. Unvote removes an active vote [name] or no lynch vote. No lynch is a vote to end the day without lynching.

2. A greater than 50% unanimity must be reached during a day phase in order to carry out a lynch or no lynch. They day phase officially ends when I declare it as such. I will declare the end of a day phase as soon as I am online and able to confirm a majority vote. So, for example, if a majority vote is reached during the day, but someone retracts their vote before I declare the day's end, then the day continues. This very thing occurred in the previous game and I wanted to make this clear with everyone from the start.

3. Players must not discuss the game outside of the day phase threads and private PMs I have started. I will be included in all PMs between privileged parties. If you, as a player, are invited to a PM under the pretence that it is "official," confirm that I am on the list of recipients. If not, report those players immediately. The penalty for violating this rule is immediate mod killing.

4. Dead players are not permitted to participate in the game, including both private PMs and the day phase treads. I will let uninformative comments slide such as, "Avenge me, townies!" However, if you reveal information that gives a demonstrable edge to either side, I will punish the party to which you were affiliated. For instance, if you were mafia, were killed, and said something too revealing from your grave, then the mafia will lose their next night phase. The same goes for townies.

5. No copying and pasting from private PMs between you and me.

6. Be courteous to your fellow players. This game loses fun if you are inconsiderate to others, whether by direct abuse or simply by not showing up. This game is most fun when players… well… play. If you have to be gone for a day or two, let your fellow players know.

7. You may communicate with me directly via the PMs I started with you when you were first invited. Also, please use these for your night phase actions so I don't have to keep track of brand new PM threads all the time.

8. This game will start with the Day Phase, so everyone listed below is alive and well.

9. Some of you have roles in this game. There are no rules against revealing these roles, but be warned, doing so early in the game could have devastating consequences.

10. To avoid this game going on for months, there will be phase limits. Each day phase has a 14 day limit. Each night phase has a 4 day limit. Day phases that reach the limit end in a no lynch (Subject to my judgement). Night phases that reach the limit will cause actions not submitted to be forfeit. These limits are flexible and can be changed pending special circumstances.

11. The townies win when all mafia are eliminated. The mafia wins as soon as they meet or beat the townies in number.

Dead players:#1. Clockwork (Role Unknown)#2. Logical Master Jester [Evil Kenivel], Had to correctly identify the Politician and Godfather before he could win. He won by being lynched.#3. ccstate4peat - Reporter [Johannes Gutenberg] - Could investigate someone and have the role revealed unanimously#4. KRF - Mason Recruiter [George Washington], could recruit someone for the masons every second night - Killed by a 3rd party.#5. Ragnar_Rahl - Jack of all Trades [Leonardo a Vinci] - Had 4 one shot abilities - Killed by Mafia

"Hang the infidel!" shouted someone in the huge crowd. The day was ending but people continued to chase the man.

"I can explain!! I'm important!" He began

"More like impotent!" shouted one man, which brought a roudn of laughter

A bald and muscular man grabbed the 'dead' man and brought him to the guillotine.

The to-be-hung man stared down the crowd. In it he saw the man he had trusted, the man who had betrayed him, for god knows why. It all suddenly unfolded. A tra--. That was the end of his thoughts as the blade severed his head.

The forest's innards oozed with gloom. Inside that gloom crept a man. He had a beret and a gun. He crept silently, putting thought into each step. He got to the forest edge and saw the small cabin. Inside lay his target, a man with a white wig He was talking to a woman bedecked silver armour. He shuffled closer and lay n the ground and got an aim on the man.

She at on the table, her armour weighing her down considerably. yet she didn't mind. The man in front of her had thoroughly convinced her of his cause.

"So" He continued "Will you join?"

She paused before saying "It would be in my best interest to, yes". Suddenly all she saw was a blinding blue light. The suddenly she was different. Firstly, she wasn't a she anymore. He was dressed similarly to the man across form him. He had his mouth open. Time seemed the pass before she heard the gunshot. The man collapsed with gaping bullet holes on his torso.

"Run." He commanded "RUN!"

He ran and ran to the designated meeting point. He looked back and spotted the attacker. A tanned man with a beard and hair down to the end of his neck.

The man followed two men into an alley. The blazing lights of neon city escaped the dingy back alleys. He followed the silhouettes to a far from prosperous side street. The suddenly woman appeared, with the best figure had ever seen.

"What's a man like you doing here?"

"Business, go away" he responded. But before he could continue he heard a deafening gunshot. He ran to a nearby building, workshop of sorts. He found a balding man on the ground, dead. He looked for the two silhouettes. None could be found. Damn he thought, damn. He went back and couldn't find the women either. Something was up.

Dead players:#1. Clockwork (Role Unknown) - Lynched on Day Phase #1#2. Logical Master Jester [Evil Kenivel], Had to correctly identify the Politician and Godfather before he could win. He won by being lynched.#3. ccstate4peat - Reporter [Johannes Gutenberg] - Could investigate someone and have the role revealed unanimously#4. KRF - Mason Recruiter [George Washington], could recruit someone for the masons every second night - Killed by a 3rd party.#5. Ragnar_Rahl - Jack of all Trades [Leonardo a Vinci] - Had 4 one shot abilities - Killed by Mafia#6: Wjmelements - Mafia Godfather [Maximilian Robespierre] - Lynched on Day Phase #2 - Innocent when investigated

What we need to do now is attempt to figure out the likely ratio of mafia/town at the beginning of the game. The above list also means that, assuming there were 5-6 to begin with, 3-4 of the following list are mafia:

Breaking it down in this way should significantly increase our chances of finding a mafioso. We can subtract two (2) from the total number of mafioso at the beginning of the game (1 dead, 1 in the list at the top) and that is the number of mafia in the second list. Therefore, our first priority is to figure out how many mafioso began the game.

Here is my conclusion. Rezzealaux is the traitorous mafia member who voted for his fellow mafioso right at the end (he was the last) to appear not guilty. Lynching wjmelements was no sure thing right up until the end when we were given three additional days. Therefore, I submit that Rezzealaux is the likely traitor (the 1/8 from the first list).

However, I think our chances are better at making a guess from the second list because we have either a 3/7 chance or a 4/7 chance (or more, depending on how many the game began with). Let us try to narrow down the second list even further, if that is at all possible.

At 8/8/2009 10:44:50 AM, JBlake wrote:Here is my conclusion. Rezzealaux is the traitorous mafia member who voted for his fellow mafioso right at the end (he was the last) to appear not guilty. Lynching wjmelements was no sure thing right up until the end when we were given three additional days. Therefore, I submit that Rezzealaux is the likely traitor (the 1/8 from the first list).

However, I think our chances are better at making a guess from the second list because we have either a 3/7 chance or a 4/7 chance (or more, depending on how many the game began with). Let us try to narrow down the second list even further, if that is at all possible.

Actually with the apperent role of a mafia janitor, I think that the traiterous mafia member is actually a mafia ursuper, who would not neccesarliy care when they voted as long as the godfather was dead. So I do not think we can point out one person on that list as of yet.

As far as the second list, with the revelation that ccstate4peat was truthfully telling that he is the reporter, Vi_Veri is the closest thing we have to a confirmed townie as of now, so she can be striken off the list.

1) The story implied a traitor (to wjm) who back-stabbed him at the last minute. I agree with JBlake's reasoning that at least one mafioso therefore voted for him. I also agree that Rezzealaux is most likely this person. Why? Because wjm's character seemed surprised at the turn-around, and if ya'll remember correctly, Rezzealaux was heavily debating me last day phase and even voted to lynch me before suddenly changing his vote at the end. This is VERY typical of mafia to do once they realize they will look suspicious if they don't cast the final votes to lynch someone. Also, Rezz was firm in whom he wanted to lynch last day phase and couldn't successfully combat my reasoning (hence his random vote to lynch me originally). For these reasons, Rezz stands at the top of my suspicion list.

2) However, it's starting to get to the point where inactives have the potential to hurt the game. Dvhoose sticks out because he's been online consistently and has yet to play. This is VERY unlike him; he was among the most active in previous games. Thus, I may be inclined to vote to lynch him at some point soon.

3) I'm starting to think that there is a mafia cop. Otherwise, why would they kill Ragnar last night? He wasn't too active yesterday to draw attention to himself, meaning they must have known he had an important role. So, to answer JBlake's question about how many mafioso the game probably started off with, we can estimate: A Godfather, A Cop, A Janitor, a Prostitute and... possibly a Recruiter? Granted I'll admit that Panda's story kind of confused me; however, I picked up on the fact that there must have been some sort of recruiting or almost recruiting going on somewhere. Anyway, I don't think there were more than 5 mafioso; however, there are MAYBE six. This is unlikely because I doubt that Panda would give the mafia such an edge. I'm going to estimate 5 for now and figure we killed 2 of them already, meaning there are probably 3 left.

As far as the second list, with the revelation that ccstate4peat was truthfully telling that he is the reporter, Vi_Veri is the closest thing we have to a confirmed townie as of now, so she can be striken off the list.

Yes, good point. Then we have 3-4/6:

mongooseNagsmongeeseAnimeFanTonytheItalianStalliondvhoose

We may be able to narrow it down further, but I doubt it. If our assumptions are correct we have at least a 50% chance at finding a mafioso. Given Panda's usual mod style (overpowering the mafia) it may be even higher.

I will give people several hours to agree/disagree with my assumptions - to see if we can find any holes in it. Then, if nothing major happens in the mean time we can begin on that list.

---------

As for the mafia usurper. I think it is too early in the game for him to have plotted early on to take out the godfather. While it is generally in his interest that the godfather be killed in the end, it is moreso in his interest that the mafia remain strong for most of the game. Therefore, I think he (or a different mafia member) only took the opportunity near the end of the phase (if not right at the end, when a lynch seemed imminent). However, I grant that I am not entirely certain on this point, which is why I believe we should begin on the second list, then go back to consider the traitor.

theLwerd, why do you believe that we killed two already? I don't think it is likely that Clockwork was mafia. I wasn't here, but wasn't he killed by the mod during the day phase? That means that the janitor (if there is one - which I doubt because he did not cover up the mafia's kill today) could not have hidden the role, because the town killed him. I think the mod just decided (a poor decision, if you ask me) to cover it up because of the rule broken by Clockwork. Please correctme if Clock work was killed in any other manner.

At 8/8/2009 11:24:42 AM, JBlake wrote:theLwerd, why do you believe that we killed two already? I don't think it is likely that Clockwork was mafia. I wasn't here, but wasn't he killed by the mod during the day phase? That means that the janitor (if there is one - which I doubt because he did not cover up the mafia's kill today) could not have hidden the role, because the town killed him. I think the mod just decided (a poor decision, if you ask me) to cover it up because of the rule broken by Clockwork. Please correctme if Clock work was killed in any other manner.

From Panda's mafia guide:

Mafia Janitor: Prevents the towns from knowing the dead persons role.

So, though Clockwork was killed in the day, there is no limitation as to whom the janitor can use is power on as far as day vs night. Also, Panda specifically stated he was not allowed to give out Clockwork's role.

JBlake - I'm not positive that Clockwork was mafia, so my 2/5 is just a guess as good as yours. The general consensus seemed to be that he was mafia though based on his actions (it was deemed that he was lying in an attempt to draw out the "real" doctor or other roles, i.e. shake up the town, etc.), and the mafia deciding to cover up Clockwork's role via the Janitor made it appear as though he were mafia yet again. This would cause confusion amongst us of knowing Clockwork's real role (if there is in fact still a living Doctor), AND it would also cause confusion of how many mafioso there are and how many we killed, etc. This is proving to be effective as we're currently trying to figure that out.

Also, SG (and JBlake) I'm pretty sure that it was agreed by most of us that there is a mafia Janitor. I'm not sure what a Usurper is - I'm looking for it now on Panda's role page - but I'm curious as to why you'd think there would be an Usurper and not a Janitor when I haven't even heard of the Usurper role (so I'm guessing it's not used very often...?). My guess is that if there's a Usurper, there's a Janitor. All logic points to this.

Here is my conclusion. Rezzealaux is the traitorous mafia member who voted for his fellow mafioso right at the end (he was the last) to appear not guilty. Lynching wjmelements was no sure thing right up until the end when we were given three additional days. Therefore, I submit that Rezzealaux is the likely traitor (the 1/8 from the first list).

I'm not sure this works.

First of all, he's insulting my intelligence, and frankly, the intelligence of everyone that's playing the game. Anyone could have figured out from Day 1 and the Clockwork mess that it's a bad idea to stick out of the crowd. Which really means everyone figured it out. I think this is a reasonable claim. Ergo, a necessary component of hir argument is that I am dumb. I know this is my first time playing, but come on, I deserve a little more respect than that right?

If we take the above argument as true, then what we get out of it is: In accusing the mafia traitor, the closer we get to the end of the list of people who voted against Wjm (chronologically), the less likely it is for that person to be the mafia traitor. Unlesss of course if you think that people are stupid, in which case the whole argument short circuits. I like to assume that people are smart, and I think that's a reasonable thing to accept as a norm on a site where people voluntarily come to debate. If we assume for a moment that every person who voted to lynch Wjmelements was a mafia traitor (not possible, but bear with me for a moment), then we would have seen a complete scrambling to turn in votes, as none of them would have wanted to be last - it is the worst possible position to be in. To say that I am the mafioso traitor because I voted last is to say I am a dumb person. I think I have shown already that I am not of that type - and if not, well, I hope my analysis here will prove me worthy in your opinion.

This point is certainly capable of holding its own ground, as we browse through our Day2's history: we try to lynch cc for stuff in Day1, he reveals name, he gets modkilled, and then the vote count looks like this (KRF's first post on p16 of Day2):

Vote Count:

Vi_Veri (theitalianstallion) - 1/10 votes needed to lynch

KRFournier (Vi_Veri) - 1/10 votes needed to lynch

theitalianstallion (ToastOfDestiny) - 1/10 votes needed to lynch

Essentially, nobody really had a good lead on who to vote for. I (me, Rezzealaux, hello :D) suggest to vote to lynch the inactives (p32), and soon afterwards, someone suggested to vote to lynch Wjm (p34). At that point, the vote count looked like this (self constructed; modified wjm's post on p32)

It was the perfect time to suggest a lynching of the Godfather, as everyone was running in every which direction - the traitor would not look conspicuous at all. Now who was this person? Who was the first to suggest that Wjmelements was a mafioso?

theLwerd: the person I was arguing with on the last couple of days of the day phase.

Though, really, it could be JBlake as well. On p34, right after theLwerd's post, he said:

I'm willing to appear as though I am bandwagoning for a couple of reasons.

Who said anything about bandwagoning? And while we're on the same subject,

Lynching wjmelements was no sure thing right up until the end when we were given three additional days.

At 8/8/2009 10:44:50 AM, JBlake wrote:

Who said anything about "sure thing"?

If we take the line "In accusing the mafia traitor, the closer we get to the end of the list of people who voted against Wjm (chronologically), the less likely it is for that person to be the mafia traitor", we see that it is an assertion of direct correlation between two things. If we flip it around, that is, replace "closer to the end" with "closer to the beginning" and "less likely" with "more likely", the direct correlation still holds and the statement would then look like this:

In accusing the mafia traitor, the closer we get to the beginning of the list of people who voted against Wjm (chronologically), the more likely it is for that person to be the mafia traitor.

I voted for Wjmelements because he looked pretty suspicious to me as well. He just jumped around here and there, letting other people make the biggest arguments and just jumping on the bandwagon later. Yes, I made a long case against theLwerd - and I stand by that. But to continue to campaign on voting for theLwerd while the entire town was convinced that lynching wjmelements was a good idea, was, as I soon realized, not going to get anywhere. I weighed my choices: vote for Wjm, who looked pretty suspicious and had everyone voting against him, or do I vote for theLwerd, who is also pretty suspicious but has almost zero people voting against her? I change my vote to Wjm, of course. I thought that if I got the votes cleared for Wjm and Day2 over, I could start the vote for theLwerd the next day with a clean poll AND get rid of my suspicions for Wjm at the same time.

So.

1) This player is under the suspicion of being the mafia traitor or usurper, the logic of which is shown in this post2) This player has made rank contradictions in their arguments, as shown on my second post of p37 of Day2 (http://www.debate.org...)3) This player has "gone 180 twice" first with cc and then with the above point.4) This player's only response against me pointing out contradictions in her argument was that my logic was bad.5) This player advocated voting against lurkers as they had a very high chance of being mafioso, but did not vote against a lurker herself.6) This player conceded to my arguments against her, the beginning of which can be read on the page I provided the direct link to on 2).

This player is theLwerd.VOTE theLwerd

: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?

At 8/8/2009 12:20:03 PM, theLwerd wrote:Also, SG (and JBlake) I'm pretty sure that it was agreed by most of us that there is a mafia Janitor. I'm not sure what a Usurper is - I'm looking for it now on Panda's role page - but I'm curious as to why you'd think there would be an Usurper and not a Janitor when I haven't even heard of the Usurper role (so I'm guessing it's not used very often...?). My guess is that if there's a Usurper, there's a Janitor. All logic points to this.

An ursurper is a mafia member whose win condition also includes having the godfather killed and thus becoming the new godfather of the mafia (ursurping the previous godfather's spot) I believe that the godfather is not often told if there is an ursurper, much less who.

Also, I never said there is not a janitor. I firmly believe that is one of the mafia's roles.

1) Why am I under the suspicion of being the Usurper? Yes, I may have outright accused WJM when nobody else stood up to do so... including you, who supposedly had suspicions, yet you remained silent on them until the rest of the town agreed with that logic (HMM). You're forgetting that 1 - I have been instrumental in figuring out who was mafia in the past (both as a regular townie and the vigilante) and 2 - There are various roles in this game that may make it easier for some people to draw certain conclusions. Just because I chose to man up and take the heart in suggesting someone to lynch doesn't mean that I am more likely the traitor than anybody else. Plus, JBlake's suspicion about the timing of the mafia traitor's vote comes from suggestions in Panda's STORY - not bad reasoning.

2/3) Your point about my so-called 180 is getting really pathetic. Once AGAIN, what I said (and stand by) was -- "I have already said repeatedly that lynching Inactives is IMPERATIVE; however, not until their inactivity stands in the way of us retaining lynch votes to kill off mafia members. I think we should wait another day or so (maybe even 3) before this becomes necessary for us to do. I believe that getting rid of people randomly when statistically it isn't in our favor to do so - and it doesn't serve a purpose; we're just doing it out of laziness - is dumb. I stand by that. If people want to misquote me or hold it against me, so be it." It's funny how you expect all of us to believe that you are such a smart player, and yet you have admittedly decided who you wanted to lynch in the past based on your own laziness.

4) Once again, I didn't contradict myself. See above. And yes, I stand by the fact that it's BAD LOGIC.

5) "This player advocated voting against lurkers as they had a very high chance of being mafioso, but did not vote against a lurker herself." -- Wtf? You keep repeating yourself. Your so-called Points 2 - 5 are essentially the same exact thing, to which I have already responded. As I've said, a LURKER is different than an INACTIVE. Once again (since you seem to have comprehension trouble), a Lurker is someone who is online (DDO) and yet does not participate in the game, i.e. dvhoose. An Inactive, to me, is someone who doesn't play because they're not online, i.e. Stallion and now Untitled_Entity. I did not do a complete 180 (as your repetitive Point 6 implies once again) in saying that I'd like to vote off lurkers. I kept insisting that lurkers are dangerous and advantageous to the mafia, indicating that they're probably mafia. However to lynch people just because they're on vacation when it provides zero benefit to the town is stupid. And dream on with your so-called concession. I didn't concede to sh1t.

Your argument (that the later the vote the less likely it is the Usurper) makes a few probably false assumptions. The Usurper only wins if the mafia wins, of course. So it is generally in his interest to keep the mafia as strong as possible and to save his hand until later in the game when the mafia is in a strong position. I think he only took the opportunity because he had to (because wjmelements was going to be killed anyway). So he (you) took the opportunity to make the lynching vote so as to appear innocent.

So to reiterate:It is in the Usurper's interest that the mafia win.It is in the usurper's interest that the godfather eventually dies.

In the beginning stages of the game, the first is more important than the second. Later in the game (if the mafia is still strong), the second becomes more pressing.

While this does not necessarily point to you (though I think it does), it does negate your claim that the opposite must be true.

At 8/8/2009 12:53:41 PM, theLwerd wrote:1) Why am I under the suspicion of being the Usurper? Yes, I may have outright accused WJM when nobody else stood up to do so... including you, who supposedly had suspicions, yet you remained silent on them until the rest of the town agreed with that logic (HMM). You're forgetting that 1 - I have been instrumental in figuring out who was mafia in the past (both as a regular townie and the vigilante) and 2 - There are various roles in this game that may make it easier for some people to draw certain conclusions. Just because I chose to man up and take the heart in suggesting someone to lynch doesn't mean that I am more likely the traitor than anybody else. Plus, JBlake's suspicion about the timing of the mafia traitor's vote comes from suggestions in Panda's STORY - not bad reasoning.

I'm not sure how I could have forgotten if I haven't played before? I don't remember seeing you post that you have been instrumental either. You are correct though, in saying that JUST because you "man[ned] up", that it is not sufficient reason to believe that you are the traitor. As for JBlake's argument in relation to the story, what you say is empirically false. Panda's story says nothing about the timing of the traitor's vote. Not bad reasoning? Well.... look at my previous post.

2/3) Your point about my so-called 180 is getting really pathetic. Once AGAIN, what I said (and stand by) was -- "I have already said repeatedly that lynching Inactives is IMPERATIVE; however, not until their inactivity stands in the way of us retaining lynch votes to kill off mafia members. I think we should wait another day or so (maybe even 3) before this becomes necessary for us to do. I believe that getting rid of people randomly when statistically it isn't in our favor to do so - and it doesn't serve a purpose; we're just doing it out of laziness - is dumb. I stand by that. If people want to misquote me or hold it against me, so be it." It's funny how you expect all of us to believe that you are such a smart player, and yet you have admittedly decided who you wanted to lynch in the past based on your own laziness.

Are we doing copypasta now or something? No matter, if you are going to show people your argument from page 37, then I will show my response to it:

At 8/2/2009 3:01:28 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:

At 8/2/2009 2:55:53 PM, theLwerd wrote:I'm not offended by your accusation, Rezzealaux, though your reasoning isn't justified. I have already said repeatedly that lynching Inactives is IMPERATIVE; however, not until their inactivity stands in the way of us retaining lynch votes to kill off mafia members.

And I have shown how it does work, as waiting until the inactives really DO pose a problem is a pretty bad idea. I think the truth value of that statement is high enough that people will buy it without the need for me to post some Holocaust quote or other real world example.

As for being smart, laziness has no correlation to intelligence. This is just a simple fact.

4) Once again, I didn't contradict myself. See above. And yes, I stand by the fact that it's BAD LOGIC.

I encourage everyone to read my post and see for themselves if my argument is composed of bad logic. Third post from the bottom of the page: http://www.debate.org...

5) "This player advocated voting against lurkers as they had a very high chance of being mafioso, but did not vote against a lurker herself." -- Wtf? You keep repeating yourself. Your so-called Points 2 - 5 are essentially the same exact thing, to which I have already responded. As I've said, a LURKER is different than an INACTIVE. Once again (since you seem to have comprehension trouble), a Lurker is someone who is online (DDO) and yet does not participate in the game, i.e. dvhoose. An Inactive, to me, is someone who doesn't play because they're not online, i.e. Stallion and now Untitled_Entity.

I am fully aware of the fact that a lurker is not the same as an inactive. I completely understand and buy the argument that a lurker is very likely to be a mafia. My argument on (5) is that even though you present an argument showing how lurkers are bad, you also go ahead and vote for someone that's not a lurker.

I did not do a complete 180 (as your repetitive Point 6 implies once again) in saying that I'd like to vote off lurkers. I kept insisting that lurkers are dangerous and advantageous to the mafia, indicating that they're probably mafia. However to lynch people just because they're on vacation when it provides zero benefit to the town is stupid. And dream on with your so-called concession. I didn't concede to sh1t.

Lurkers are not on vacation, and I think we can all agree to this. As for concession, I apologize for using the wrong word. I lack a phrase for this concept.

Essentially, theLwerd just keeps saying I'm wrong, but does not say why. All her "why"'s are simply reiterations of things she has already said and things that I have already responded to. If someone makes a case in a debate, and you take up that debate and point out how certain parts of the case contradicts itself, and then the OP comes and says "No, you're wrong! You have bad logic!" well what do you do? You ask them how you have bad logic, and where inconsistencies are in your own logic. This is what I have done with theLwerd. Whereas I have given laid-out logical responses (and by this I do not assert their truth value but rather their format), all she has done is, and she says this herself, repeat what she's said before. To be sure she's given me the first set of responses or maybe even the second one, but if you go to that link I posted a few times (p37 of Day2), you will see that I have had the last word, and all theLwerd is doing now is repeating things that I have already refuted.

As a voter or judge, when one side does nothing but repeat their points that have already been taken down, what do you do?

You vote against them.

: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?